“One irrefutable conclusion that flows from the foregoing analysis is that there is no single standard that can be applied to determine whether an interim or partial award is “final” and thus subject to confirmation or vacatur, or recognition and enforcement, under the FAA. The many risks and incongruities associated with that fact are compounded by the principle that when an arbitral tribunal designates or characterizes such an award as “final,” federal courts will at least assume jurisdiction to determine whether the award was “final” under the FAA and therefore subject to being confirmed or vacated. Thus, and despite Judge Posner’s observation that “if the arbitrator himself thinks he’s through with the case, then his award is final and appealable,” not all such awards are truly final under the FAA. The FAA consequently provides that on review, such awards may be vacated when “a mutual, final, and definite award … was not made.” The confusing nature of this circularity is perhaps unavoidable; but it argues nicely for a more comprehensive effort to bring clarity to a situation in which ambiguity generally abounds.

The status quo under institutional arbitration rules is no better. The lack of supporting definitions, the excessive and confused use of phraseology relating to “awards” and “orders,” and the failure to address the many subtle issues associated with the issuance of final interim and partial awards all place parties at unnecessary risk. Parties and arbitrators, who understandably are not aware of the pitfalls created by the FAA and exacerbated by institutional rules and conflicting court decisions, thus continue to fall victim to the deficiencies bred by incomplete statutes and rules.”

This pretty much sums up the pending issues/obstacles that are likely to arise in the next few months…Not looking forward to this “legal battle,” but luckily, I have access to great literature on the subject matter. Gaitis’ article supports that the AAA does not have jurisdiction to remove Arbitrator Gregory and void all of his decisions, although he has made numerous errors. His award is “final” because he has determined liability under athe first stage of the bifurcated proceeding. The award is not functus officio because an appeal is pending, but at this stage, any decision to vacate the award and replace the arbitrator, would have to be made by the Southern District of New York. The reason Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and the other Loeb attorneys cannot raise arguments similar to the ones contained in their second Motion to Disqualify Arbitrator Gregory is that they would immediately be violating Rule 11 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Judiciary Law  § 487, thus continuing their perpetuation of “fraud upon the Court” in my case. And they can’t raise those arguments to Gregory directly in their opposition to my appeal, because they play the victim and essentially blame Gregory, as well as myself, for their overall inadequacies and legally insufficient defenses. At the end of the day, this is all being done in extreme bad faith because Loeb & Loeb LLP should not even be allowed to represent William Morris in this case!!

Source: James M. Gaitis, The Federal Arbitration Act: Risks and Incongruities Relating to the Issuance of Interim and Partial Awards in Domestic and International Arbitrations. 16 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 1, 104-104, 2005.